Fluoride Damages Teeth

4/14/08 | nyscof

[Wallace T.]

They do because of government decision and not the marketplace.

[Petronski]

Round and round we go. Government does it because the people want it.

[Wallace T.]

Government does it because the people want it.

Elected and appointed officials making such decisions contradict the foundational conservative principles of self-reliance and minimal government intrusion even if a majority of voters want it at this time or 40 years ago.

[Petronski]

Round and round we go. That’s the libertarian line, not the conservative line.

I’ll let you know if I find any good parcels in East Upper Luddite Township.

Feel free to troll on.

[Wallace T.]

That’s the libertarian line, not the conservative line.

Since when is conservatism in the American sense not about limited government and adherence to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution? Or do you not recognize that such men as Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater, Robert Taft, Sr., and Milton Friedman were conservatives? Their brand of conservatism was essentially classical liberalism. Libertarianism shares many of the same ideals, but abides in the belief of the perfectibility of man and the need to abolish all restraints. Classical conservatism, as per Edmund Burke, recognizes the Christian view of the fallen nature of man and the need for restraint on behavior for the maintenance of social order.

I’ll let you know if I find any good parcels in East Upper Luddite Township.

And if there are any good real estate deals in Berkeley, California, or Cambridge, Massachusetts, I'll do the same.

[Petronski]

Look behind you, it’s a bottle of fluoride....Booo!

[Wallace T.]

I’ll happily give it to you if you will let me drink the wine you fear because of its impurity.

[Petronski]

You demonstrate that either (a) you do not understand sarcasm or (b) you have never seen Strangelove.

[Petronski]

Perhaps both.

[Wallace T.]

You’re wrong on both counts. I have yet to hear a defense of your position from a conservative viewpoint. You can make a case for fluoridating the public water supply, but such a case is inconsistent with minimal government intervention and personal responsibility, which are the philosophical underpinnings of American conservatism.

[Petronski]

...but such a case is inconsistent with minimal government intervention and personal responsibility...

As you see it. The lyrics are "conservative" but the song is libertarian.

[snoringbear]

“Go look at children’s teeth that live in West Texas and you will find a brown stain on some and white lines on others.”

Your comment is the exact point I made in my initial comment which one in particular person missed rather badly.
Anyway, having lived in the panhandle and west Texas for over fifteen years (one daughter born in Lubbuck and two daughters born in Midland)I have some personal knowledge in this arena. Both of these cities depend on wells for their water. However, most folks keep their young children on bottled water so to avoid those stains you mentioned - another point I made in my initial comment.
Anyway, thanks for the supporting comment - much appreciated.

[Wallace T.]

Conservatism has, or used to have, a clear definition, deriving first from the opposition to the New Deal and later the struggle against international Communism. Its earliest advocates were men like Robert Taft, Sr., and Howard Buffett (father of Warren Buffett). The post-World War II conservative movement had William Buckley as its catalyst, Barry Goldwater as its main political leader, and represented a coalition between anti-Communists like James Burnham, classical liberals like Frank Meyer, and traditionalists like Russell Kirk. It is neither the atheistic worldview of Ayn Rand nor the conspiracy mongering of Robert Welch. The common threads of the movement were minimalist government, a strong national defense, and free market economics. Among the recent GOP candidates for President, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter come closest to these positions, and Fred Thompson to a lesser extent. Neither John McCain nor Ron Paul fully qualify.

You may believe what you will, but it may not be conservatism in the historical American sense.

[tongass kid]

Many cities use pot ash to reduce the acid level of the naturally acidic water. Without it, the delivery system will deteriorate rapidly and require often replacement. Cheaper to add pot ash then digging up the streets to replace pipe. There is no medical reason to add pot ash.

[Wallace T.]

If that is the case, there is then a reasonable case for placing it into the water supply, as it is a tax saving measure with no appreciable harm caused, as far as I know.

[tongass kid]

I can find no place where the ADA recommends getting rid of old fillings. Please cite a refenence. Thanks.

[steelyourfaith]

"It’s like the ADA recommending we all get rid of our old fillings."

I believe this is a bit of a misstatement. Nowhere has the ADA made such a recommendation. OTOH, a vocal, unscientific quack-practitioner minority some years ago (aided and abetted by the MSM, and in particular CBS's Sixty Minutes) had, without official sacnction, promoted that scam.

"The scrupulous dentist (as are most of them) told us to just forget about it"

Indeed. And isn't it heartening that the ADA advocates the use of fluoride based on the fact that it benefits the public by reducing dental decay --- despite the consequence that it financially impacts the dental profession negatively?

Would that other professions were so honorable, in particular the Big Government political profession.

[steelyourfaith]

"First of all, dental fluorosis levels are NOT low. Up to 48% of US school children have it with 4% having severe fluorosis, according to the US Centers for Disease Control."

Again, the point you seem determined to miss is that the premise of your thread title is grossly misleading.

We all know that virtually anything ingested in over-abundance will likely cause negative consequences, but your title implies a blanket indictment of an agent with proven dental caries reducing activity when used in moderation, a mere 1.0 part per million.

You obfuscate with a statistic (from a government bureaucracy) that 4% of school age children have severe fluorosis. Well, the images below demonstrate severe fluorosis.

I dare say that 1 in 25 school age children in the general population do not look anywhere near this presentation.

It wouldn't be the first time Big Government flunky bureaucrats, such as those at the US Centers for Disease Control, were wrong.

Consider the history of how the caries reducing action of fluoride was discovered:

A Classic Epidemiological Study

Involves the demonstration of the caries inhibitory properties of fluoridated water. Began with the study of "Colorado Brown Stain" by Frederick S. McKay in 1908. Stain was found only in long term residents of Colorado Springs. The etiological agent, then, was something in the environment which was active during the formation of the teeth. The water supply from deep artesian wells was the only experience shared by all, thus the agent responsible for the dental mottling was some common constituent of the community water supply. Yet a priori this explanation seemed absurd. repeated chemical analyses, covering all known elements found in the drinking water failed to reveal anything common to all of the waters associated with mottled enamel.

Oakley, Idaho, in 1925 was the first community to alter domestic water to improve dental health by changing their source of water so as to free themselves of mottling.

In 1931 McKay sent Oakley water samples to H. V. Churchill at ALCOA where new spectrographic methods of analysis revealed naturally occurring fluoride present up to 14 parts-per-million. The immediate reaction of the scientific community was a number of studies to determine whether fluoride in the amounts normally found in the water supply were injurious to human health. But McKay had noticed in 1928 that the same water which produced mottled enamel also seemed to reduce the prevalence of dental caries. McKay and H. Trendley Dean demonstrated the fact that fluoride ingestion could be adjusted to an optimal intake with hazard to the individual at small expense. The caries inhibitory effect of fluoridated water is discernible in individuals as old as 45 years.

Dean had shown that mottling was manifest in a wide range of degrees, from fine, lacy markings almost invisible to extreme hypoplasia in which enamel was pitted, stained and highly friable. He made a six grade Index of Dental Fluorosis. His studies showed that there was definite relationship between the prevalence of fluorosis and previous studies on prevalence of caries. With this presumptive evidence, a direct test of the hypothesis was designed. Sound conclusions could be reached only in those communities with a common water supply from the same source to all residents, without alteration during the lifetime of the people to be examined with a stable fluoride level over a period long enough to establish and define range of fluoridation.

Two cities with 1.7-1.8 ppm fluoride and two with 0.2 ppm fluoride were selected. Examinations of children aged 12-14 who were lifetime residents showed that the prevalence of dental caries was about twice as high in the 0.2 ppm fluoride cities as in was in the 1.7-1.8 ppm cities. The conclusion stated that if marked caries inhibitory influence were operative at concentrations as low as minimal threshold of endemic fluorosis mottling (i.e., 1.0 ppm) the findings would be important.

Subsequent studies did show that strikingly low dental caries prevalence was associated with 1.0 ppm fluoride with only sporadic instances of the mildest forms of dental fluorosis of no practical esthetic significance. Controlled artificial fluoridation of municipal water supplies was thus begun in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.